1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to the field of computer software and hardware. Specifically the present invention relates to a method and apparatus for automatically issuing notifications to recipients about certain status and location-related information associated with a moving object such as a vehicle, a bus, a truck, a bicycle, a container, a package, or any other types of moving objects.
2. Description of the Prior Art and Related Information
Notification of the arrival of a vehicle has been a common subject of invention. The prior art suffers from major design flaws that make them impractical in actual implementations and hence none of those methods presented in the prior art have actually been implemented.
The three items by Ross listed below are based on a very similar methodology and differ slightly in the application of the general method.
Both Ross, “Apparatus And Method Of Notifying A Recipient Of An Unscheduled Delivery,” U.S. Pat. No. 5,444,444 (1995) and Ross, “Apparatus And Method Of Notifying A Party Of A Pending Delivery Or Pickup, ” U.S. Pat. No. 5,648,770, (July 1997) are designed for the notification of a pending delivery or pickup. Ross '444 and '770 employ an old-fashioned on-board card reader for passengers to register identification, and an on-board mechanical distance-measuring device. Both devices are obsolete and no longer available on the market.
In Ross '444, the method of notification is schedule-based, i.e., the list of stops of a trip must be pre-determined and the sequence of the stops is fixed during the trip. The method is static in the sense that the trip schedule, the locations of stops, and the sequence of the stops are all fixed throughout the trip. The preferred embodiment contains an on-board notebook computer with keyboard and display, in order for the driver to take actions throughout the trip. The method is clearly interactive, i.e., the operation of the notification system requires some interaction from the driver during the trip. Ross '444 presents a notification system characterized as schedule-based, static, and interactive.
Ross '770 applies the same apparatus and the same method to the same purpose of pending delivery or pickup for a slightly different scenario. While the method of Ross '444 is applied to one item per stop along the route, Ross '770 allows for selection of one item from a set of multiple items at any given stop. The expansion from Ross '444 to Ross '770 allows multiple items to be delivered at the same stop location, instead of one item at the same location. The method presented in Ross '770 remains schedule-based, static, and interactive.
Ross, “Apparatus And Method For Tracking And Reporting The Location Of A Motor Vehicle,” U.S. Pat. 5,673,305 (1997) is essentially the same method as in Ross '444 and '770 but is applied to a method of reporting a stolen vehicle. In this case, the method involves one single item and relates to notification under a special circumstance. Ross '305 does not address notification of arrival, approaching a location, entering a location, leaving a location, or any other types of vehicle status.
A second group of prior art arrival-notification methods is presented in Jones, “System And Method For An Advance Notification System For Monitoring And Reporting Proximity Of A Vehicle,” U.S. Pat. No. 6,278,936 (2001); Jones, “Base Station System And Method For Monitoring Travel Of Mobile Vehicles And Communicating Notification Messages,” U.S. Pat. No. 6,317,060 (2001); Jones, “Advance Notification System And Method Utilizing User-Definable Notification Period,” U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,891 (2002); and Jones, et al., “Advanced Notification System And Method,” U.S. Pat. No. 5,400,020 (1995). These methods can be categorized as methods of schedule-based notification, static notification with fixed stop sequence, on-board clock, and fixed-route notification. Each of these methods are based on a fixed schedule of a trip. Whether or not a notification should be issued and when should the notification be issued are based on the preset schedule of the trip. In any case, a schedule is required for the notification operation. Due to the nature of a scheduled activity, the route of a vehicle is fixed and any change in the route must be made prior to the start of the trip. Any change in the route pattern, the sequence of stops, the addition or removal of stops, and the change of streets of the route, is not acceptable for any of the methods to work.
Since Jones' methods are based on a fixed schedule, issuance of a notification requires the comparison between the elapsed time for each stop and the scheduled time. For example, in Jones '020, a vehicle clock must be used to compare the elapsed time at each stop to the scheduled arrival time at that stop, in order to determine if the bus is on schedule or off schedule. In Jones '060 the system requires a “schedule monitor” to determine if the vehicle is off schedule. In Jones '891, the vehicle control unit (VCU) must compare the elapsed time and/or traveled distance against the schedule. Clearly, all these methods are schedule-based and their decision making mechanism requires a fixed schedule set before a trip starts.
In Jones' methods, all the stop locations are determined by the schedule and are fixed before the trip starts. At each stop on the scheduled route, a mechanism is required to enter a code of the location of the bus stop, and a clock on the vehicle must compare the elapsed time from the previous time point (previous bus stop on the route), in order to determine if the bus is on schedule or not. An action from the driver will be required if the current time on the bus at the current bus stop location is different from the scheduled time by a preset threshold. If the time difference is greater than the preset threshold, the communication means on the bus will send a message to the base station. The base station then makes phone calls to the students that are supposed to board the bus at the given stop location. In other words, the prior art requires a fixed sequence of pre-determined stop locations.
A clock on the vehicle is needed in order to compare the elapsed time from a previous stop to a current stop, and to compare the elapsed time to the scheduled arrival at the current stop to determine whether the vehicle is off schedule beyond a preset interval. The driver will have to look at the clock and compare it with the schedule, and either signal the need to issue an arrival notification if it is off schedule, or continue the trip without issuing a notification if the vehicle is on schedule.
When the vehicle is off schedule at a particular stop, the driver must adjust the schedule for the rest of the trip because every subsequent stop will be affected by the delay at the stop. In this case, the driver has to correct the schedule for the rest of the trip. This step requires driver's interaction.
Jones' methods are not of practical value because the system requires a fixed schedule, fixed route, and driver's interaction along the route. The driver must read the time from the on-board clock when arriving at any stop, and calculate if the elapsed time is within the scheduled arrival time, and decide if a notification should be issued to the passengers of the next stop. If the elapsed time is over what is allowed by the schedule, then the driver must take additional action to adjust the schedule. The requirement of actions by either the driver or the dispatcher makes Jones' methods impractical for implementations.
To avoid comparing the elapsed time with the scheduled time, Jones presented another method to determine if the vehicle is off schedule by computing traveled distance between stops. To do so, some distance measurement tool such as an odometer detector must be implemented to determine the position based on the mileage measurement. The system thus will require linking to the odometer and determining bus stop locations based on the odometer reading. In addition, a door detector is also necessary in order to use it as an input means corresponding to stop locations. Using either an odometer detector or a door detector in order to estimate the distance traveled between two stops is unrealistic and has not been implemented.
Jones' methods require notifications be sent from the base station. In reality, certain notifications may be better sent from the vehicle directly to the recipient. Lacking the flexibility to issue notifications from the vehicle makes the methods less applicable.
Jones' methods are limited to a fixed-route scheduling operation. The bus must travel through the route that is previously fixed. Students are expected to come to the bus stop to board the bus. The methods are not feasible for implementation due to the different expectations in reality. In reality, students are told to go to the bus stop at a given range of time. If the bus is late for a short period of time, there is no need to call the students. If the bus is earlier, students are not ready because they are expected to go to the bus stop at a fixed range of time, instead of waiting for an instruction on the fly. If the bus is late for a short period of time, then the student will have already left home, heading towards the stop, or waiting at the stop. Calling students' homes to inform a late arrival for a short period of time is unnecessary and impractical—it is unlikely that any student will stay home to wait for that call. If the bus is late for a long period of time, the school transportation must identify other means of remedial bussing service to pick up the students. It is unlikely for the school to tell the students to wait at home for another forty-five minutes due to the late arrival. In other words, Jones' methods have a major flaw in that they conflict with the actual or expected behaviors.
Jones' methods are limited to a fixed route, or a fixed sequence of bus stops, in order for the scheduled arrival time at each stop to be compared to the on-board clock to determine if a notification is warranted. This limitation makes the method useless because the only need for pre-arrival notification is for a variable route on a dynamic scheduling situation, which is quite different from the design of Jones' methods for static routing. A typical variable, dynamic routing is useful for buses equipped with special instruments to handle wheelchairs. In this situation, the bus route is not fixed because the passengers change on a daily basis due to their different schedules. The route changes on a daily basis and the driver may pick up students in any sequence appropriate. Therefore, the route cannot be strictly fixed. Jones' methods are designed for the fixed route where students go to the bus stop to board the bus. In the dynamic routing situation, that stop could be a variable and actually the bus goes to the house to pick up students, rather than for students to go to the bus stop to board a bus.
To make a pre-arrival notification for a dynamic route, the decision to make or not make a call cannot rely on the position entered at a bus stop or fixed location according to a fixed schedule. Comparisons between a scheduled arrival time at a specific stop and the actual arrival time at that same position will not work because the bus may take a different route in a different way. The bus may skip one location because that student will not go to school that day. In this case, the bus does not need to follow that same route pattern because skipping a location makes the route different, i.e., a better path can be taken without going in and out a neighborhood. In this case, some stops may be skipped and other stops may be added, and Jones' methods requiring comparison between the scheduled arrival time at a specific stop cannot handle the dynamic routing situation.
Jones' methods are at best applicable to a fixed route situation and thus the present invention is much more versatile and capable than Jones' methods. The present invention can handle a dynamic routing situation where bus stops may change on a daily basis and even while the bus is running on streets. In other words, the present invention enables a driver to leave the transportation yard and, while on the way to reach one student's house or a bus stop, make a change in real time to alter the route. There is no need for the driver to do anything concerning the schedule, the route, the stops, and the notification. While the route has been changed, any need of pre-arrival notification can be issued for any student's house or any stop on the way, and the notification can be issued automatically without the driver's interaction or any dispatcher's action. This is possible because the present invention does not rely on a fixed route schedule and does not need to compare the scheduled arrival time at any given location with the actual arrival time of the bus at that location.
In reality, notification of arrival time for fixed routes is not needed in school transportation. The notification of arrival time is useful only for dynamic routes where the bus may change its course at any time. Jones' methods cannot handle any dynamic routing situation and that may be the reason that since the methods was first presented in 1995, no school district has implemented any device based on this method.
What is needed is a system and methodology, which is not subject to the foregoing flaws of the prior art.